Protection from Male Genital Mutilation

[Nulono]

Protection from Male Genital Mutilation

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

BELIEVING that the right to bodily sanctity is important to protect, regardless of gender,
ASSERTING that acts which violate this basic right are widely viewed as barbaric in nature, and
VOWING to protect these rights for groups that have, to this point, been overlooked by Assembly law,

The World Assembly hereby:

DEFINES Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) as any non-consensual modification of the male genitalia that significantly damages or prevents basic function of the appendage(s), including but not limited to cutting, binding, tearing, stretching, crushing, and other practices

PROHIBITS the practice of MGM in all member states

PROVIDES that MGM may be permitted and exceptions made under the following conditions:

1. In the case of medical emergency, where a qualified medical professional has determined that such practice is necessary
a) If adequate medical facilities are not available, an evaluation must be made after the fact and as soon as possible for appropriate after-care
b) Action taken under these circumstances must ensure that as little damage is done to the genitals as necessary
c) This exemption may be overruled in the event that the male is judged mentally competent and provides an informed refusal of treatment

2. In the event that a male provides informed, explicit, and voluntary consent for the procedure
a) Membership, sought or acquired, in any structured group including but not limited to religious, educational, penal, or employment-based will not be recognized as consent meeting the requirements of this Resolution
b) Consent provided must be given directly from the male to the person performing the procedure
------ i) Power of attorney, parental authority, and other such circumstances where consent may normally be given legally by individuals not directly affected by practices in question are not recognized as consent meeting the requirements of this Resolution
------ ii) If consent is given in writing or a similar medium that is not face-to-face prior to the procedure, additional consent must be given immediately before the procedure is to be performed
c) Consent provided must be proven to be voluntary and without duress
d) If the procedure requested is irreversible, drastic, or intended to be permanent, the individual must be subjected to a mandatory waiting period
------ i ) During this waiting period, educational material pertinent to the sought procedure must be provided; this material can be presented in written or visual medium, as one or more mandated personal consultations with medical professionals familiar with the procedure, or a combination thereof
------ ii ) This waiting period must provide adequate time in which the male can fully understand and be certain of the alteration they seek and for which they are giving consent
e) Consent may be overridden if it is proven through psychological evaluation or other means that the individual is mentally incompetent and therefore incapable of providing informed consent

3. In the event that the male is prenate, and his incubating parent is medically required to consume a teratogenic substance

ENCOURAGES nations to seek justice for victims of MGM performed both prior to and after the passing of this Resolution

ASSERTS that this Resolution and its contents also apply to intersex individuals who present with partial or full male genitalia

Co-authored by Intellect and the Arts

[Nulono]

I probably horrifically bungled the format, but I'm new at this. Gimme a break.

[GeneralHaNor]

all I can say is good luck

the good people of the WA currently favor the genital modification of their boys.

[Nulono]

But not their girls, apparently.

Sigh.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

On Male Genital Mutilation
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Nulono

Description:

ACKNOWLEDGING that opinions vary on male and female circumcision,
RECOGNIZING that many studies point to the negative side effects of modification of the genitals,
NOTING that WA Resolution #114 forbids the practice of female genital mutilation, and
FURTHER NOTING that the Charter of Civil Rights bans discrimination on the basis of gender,

The WA Assembly hereby adopts the following resolution.

1. Definitions
The term "male genital mutilation" (MGM) shall be defined to encompass the following when done without the informed, uncoerced consent of the male in question:
A. Castration, the removal of one or both testes, or parts thereof
B. Circumcision, the removal of all or part of the foreskin
C. Eviration, the removal of all or part of the penis
D. Vasectomies, the removal or cutting of the vas deferens
E. Chemical sterilizations, in which reproduction is permanently prevented by the introduction of chemicals
F. Any chemicals or drugs that, when taken during pregnancy or the functional equivalent thereof, have the teterogenous effect of inhibiting the development of the male genitalia
G. Any other modification of the male genitalia not specifically mentioned above

2. The WA prohibits any act of MGM in member states, save when it is absolutely necessary as a reaction to a clear and present threat to the male's life, or, in the case of Class F MGM, the sapient in which the male gestates.

ACKNOWLEDGING that opinions vary on male and female circumcision,
RECOGNIZING that many studies point to the negative side effects of modification of the genitals,
NOTING that WA Resolution #114 forbids the practice of female genital mutilation, and
FURTHER NOTING that the Charter of Civil Rights bans discrimination on the basis of gender,
DEFINES Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) as any modification of the Male Genitals,
OUTLAWS MGM that is done without consent in all WA member states.

just do this and be done.

[Seperate Vermont]

I can see this being a fair proposal. I agree, it's format could be improved, but that is the liberty of a Draft.

2. The WA prohibits any act of MGM in member states, save when it is absolutely necessary as a reaction to a clear and present threat to the male's life, or, in the case of Class F MGM, the sapient in which the male gestates.

Perhaps also include "Or when consent is assumed as proper under domestic law"? I find it would be a better wording of that statement, and be more inclusive and serve the overall draft's better purpose, if you wanted to include something like this.

On Male Genital Mutilation
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Nulono

Description:

ACKNOWLEDGING that opinions vary on male and female circumcision,
RECOGNIZING that many studies point to the negative side effects of modification of the genitals,
NOTING that WA Resolution #114 forbids the practice of female genital mutilation, and
FURTHER NOTING that the Charter of Civil Rights bans discrimination on the basis of gender,

The WA Assembly hereby adopts the following resolution.

1. Definitions
The term "male genital mutilation" (MGM) shall be defined to encompass the following when done without the informed, uncoerced consent of the male in question:
A. Castration, the removal of one or both testes, or parts thereof
B. Circumcision, the removal of all or part of the foreskin
C. Eviration, the removal of all or part of the penis
D. Vasectomies, the removal or cutting of the vas deferens
E. Chemical sterilizations, in which reproduction is permanently prevented by the introduction of chemicals
F. Any chemicals or drugs that, when taken during pregnancy or the functional equivalent thereof, have the teterogenous effect of inhibiting the development of the male genitalia
G. Any other modification of the male genitalia not specifically mentioned above

2. The WA prohibits any act of MGM in member states, save when it is absolutely necessary as a reaction to a clear and present threat to the male's life, or, in the case of Class F MGM, the sapient in which the male gestates.

ACKNOWLEDGING that opinions vary on male and female circumcision,
RECOGNIZING that many studies point to the negative side effects of modification of the genitals,
NOTING that WA Resolution #114 forbids the practice of female genital mutilation, and
FURTHER NOTING that the Charter of Civil Rights bans discrimination on the basis of gender,
DEFINES Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) as any modification of the Male Genitals without consent from the person who's genitals are being modified,
OUTLAWS MGM In all WA member states.

just do this and be done.

Or this could be an alternative if you don't.

[Nulono]

I can see this being a fair proposal. I agree, it's format could be improved, but that is the liberty of a Draft.

2. The WA prohibits any act of MGM in member states, save when it is absolutely necessary as a reaction to a clear and present threat to the male's life, or, in the case of Class F MGM, the sapient in which the male gestates.

Perhaps also include "Or when consent is assumed as proper under domestic law"? I find it would be a better wording of that statement, and be more inclusive and serve the overall draft's better purpose, if you wanted to include something like this.

I don't know what that means.

[Seperate Vermont]

save when it is absolutely necessary as a reaction to a clear and present threat to the male's life

^This could actually change Domestic policy, or suggests it in wording

when consent is assumed as proper under domestic law

Does not.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

I can see this being a fair proposal. I agree, it's format could be improved, but that is the liberty of a Draft.




Perhaps also include "Or when consent is assumed as proper under domestic law"? I find it would be a better wording of that statement, and be more inclusive and serve the overall draft's better purpose, if you wanted to include something like this.

I don't know what that means.

if, under the countries laws, the consent is assumed to exist.

[Nulono]

save when it is absolutely necessary as a reaction to a clear and present threat to the male's life

^This could actually change Domestic policy, or suggests it in wording

when consent is assumed as proper under domestic law

Does not.

What do you mean it could change domestic policy?

[Vitoriasa]

This is absolutely not an international issue.
Attempts at resolutions banning/outlawing this practice have been struck down countless times. Vitoriasa will not show any support in this issue.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

This is absolutely not an international issue.
Attempts at resolutions banning/outlawing this practice have been struck down countless times. Vitoriasa will not show any support in this issue.

but FEMALE Genital Mutilation IS an international issue?

[GeneralHaNor]

This is absolutely not an international issue.
Attempts at resolutions banning/outlawing this practice have been struck down countless times. Vitoriasa will not show any support in this issue.

but FEMALE Genital Mutilation IS an international issue?

it's an obvious double standard they refuse to address
I blame the international jewry

[Seperate Vermont]

^This could actually change Domestic policy, or suggests it in wording

Does not.

What do you mean it could change domestic policy?

It could be seen as a loophole to instate that consent must be obtained in all situations if the loose definition "may cause harm" is subjectively used. By domestic law enables the same thing, and in a domestically agreeable way.

[The Rich Port]

Well... While The Rich Port will not outright outlaw circumcision (it's a hygiene thing), it will vote FOR after you clean it up.

We have enough double standards in the world.

[Nulono]

What do you mean it could change domestic policy?

It could be seen as a loophole to instate that consent must be obtained in all situations if the loose definition "may cause harm" is subjectively used. By domestic law enables the same thing, and in a domestically agreeable way.

The proposal specifically allows FGM only in life-threatening cases.

Well... While The Rich Port will not outright outlaw circumcision (it's a hygiene thing), it will vote FOR after you clean it up.

We have enough double standards in the world.

This bill does not ban circumcision, or any form of genital modification for that matter. It merely prohibits forcing it on anyone without consent.

[The Rich Port]

This bill does not ban circumcision, or any form of genital modification for that matter. It merely prohibits forcing it on anyone without consent.

For us it definitely does. Babies can't literally consent, can they? To protect children's rights in The Rich Port, we developed the double-consent system: the parents may override their child, but it's harder for them to do so, since the child also has rights. The government doesn't feel comfortable with it, but we let it slide purely because babies don't really bother with such things.

Our hospitals started offering medical circumcisions to spooked parents after an outbreak of fungi infections killed 2,007 non-circumcised newborns in 1967, specifically because mold and bacteria became trapped under the foreskin. They're a routine medical process, virtually painless since the child is given anaesthetic, and it HAS been shown to decrease instances of urinary tract infections and other penis-related diseases.

We can't really go along with it, but we'll still vote FOR.

National sovereignty < the suffering of others

[Nulono]

If the foreskin must be removed to save the child's life, it is permissible. It sounds like basic hygiene should solve the problem of fungi.

[Seperate Vermont]

The proposal specifically allows FGM only in life-threatening cases

But it leaves a loophole in definition when you read the text, and may in fact deviate domestic policy from what is defined as "emergency consent" to what is just an emergency, and thus require it.

[The Rich Port]

If the foreskin must be removed to save the child's life, it is permissible. It sounds like basic hygiene should solve the problem of fungi.

Naturally, but some countries don't have a hygiene standard, at least for their "lesser" folk. This kind of legislature is necessary for such folk.

We would most definitely be willing to go all the way and ban it outright if you make it stricter.

[Seperate Vermont]

ACKNOWLEDGING that opinions vary on male and female circumcision,
RECOGNIZING that many studies point to the negative side effects of modification of the genitals,
NOTING that WA Resolution #114 forbids the practice of female genital mutilation, and
FURTHER NOTING that the Charter of Civil Rights bans discrimination on the basis of gender,
DEFINES Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) as any modification of the Male Genitals without consent from the person whose genitals are being modified
PROVIDING that MGM may be permitted if it is in the opinion of at least three qualified medical professionals that it is necessary to save the life of the male (or, if the MGM were to be caused by a teterogen, the person in which the male currently gestates),
OUTLAWS MGM In all WA member states.

If you can't understand what I am saying about this, I advise you to at least keep the draft like this ^

[Charlotte Ryberg]

NOTING that WA Resolution #114 forbids the practice of female genital mutilation, and
FURTHER NOTING that the Charter of Civil Rights bans discrimination on the basis of gender,

These are house of cards violations. It should be able to survive the repeal of such resolutions.

[Nulono]

The proposal specifically allows FGM only in life-threatening cases

But it leaves a loophole in definition when you read the text, and may in fact deviate domestic policy from what is defined as "emergency consent" to what is just an emergency, and thus require it.

I don't understand.

If the foreskin must be removed to save the child's life, it is permissible. It sounds like basic hygiene should solve the problem of fungi.

Naturally, but some countries don't have a hygiene standard, at least for their "lesser" folk. This kind of legislature is necessary for such folk.

We would most definitely be willing to go all the way and ban it outright if you make it stricter.

Then that seems like a job for a cleanliness law. It is not acceptable to mutilate defenseless people just so you don't have to bother rinsing out their junk.

NOTING that WA Resolution #114 forbids the practice of female genital mutilation, and
FURTHER NOTING that the Charter of Civil Rights bans discrimination on the basis of gender,

These are house of cards violations. It should be able to survive the repeal of such resolutions.

I'll see what I can do.

[Seperate Vermont]

NOTING that WA Resolution #114 forbids the practice of female genital mutilation, and
FURTHER NOTING that the Charter of Civil Rights bans discrimination on the basis of gender,

These are house of cards violations. It should be able to survive the repeal of such resolutions.

It's not that it neccessarily dervies it's strucutre from that resolution, more that it is noting general attitudes. It might be better to reword it, though.

[Intellect and the Arts]

*Note: I started on this post a little over an hour ago, before several other comments were made. As such, certain things are repeated that had not previously been adequately addressed by others.

1) Category and strength?

2) You mayn't mention FGM, CoCR, or any other past or current Resolution by name or number. It's a House of Cards violation. Resolutions must be able to stand on their own and therefore may not contain explicit references to pre-existing Resolutions that may or may not be repealed at a later date.

3) Removal of the fallacious "many studies" clause in the preamble would be beneficial. Since you mayn't reference Real Life studies in proposal text, and proving NS studies to the same effect would be a pain in the keister and possibly not entirely legal to include, you'll be better off just leaving it out. Leave it as a given that 'mutilation' is a bad thing.

4) Three medical professionals? Specifying a number is superfluous to your intent and could result in severe problems for all occurrences where a multitude of qualified professionals either aren't readily on hand or are unable to provide their opinion in short order. Remember, you're talking about medical emergencies. The nature of an emergency is that it cannot be predicted, nor does it happen in convenient locations. Including an exclusion for medical emergencies is all well and good, but you need to phrase it in such a way that practicing the law you intend to put into motion is feasible. This may also be a situation where less is more. Simply stating that exemptions can be made for medical emergencies should suffice without specifying what constitutes a medical emergency or the type of facilities required, as this is best left to individual nations to discern.

5) Saying only that you define mutilation as 'modification without consent' can be severely twisted. It may be better to define mutilation as a modification which significantly alters or in any way inhibits basic function of the appendage(s) in question without the explicit informed consent of the recipient. You would also, at this point, wish to add that membership, sought or acquired, in any structured group including but not limited to religious, educational, penal, or employment-based will not be recognized as consent meeting the requirements of this Resolution. Further, you would do well to add that power of attorney, parental authority, and other such circumstances where consent may normally be given legally by individuals not directly affected by practices in question are not recognized as consent meeting the requirements of this Resolution. Consent must always come directly from the individual(s) directly affected. As an added measure, you may want to include that all statements of consent must be investigated and the individual providing consent evaluated to determine that they are mentally competent enough to be capable of giving informed consent and that they are not doing so under duress. If the sought genital alteration is also irreversible, a mandatory waiting period may be imposed during which the individual must be provided with educational material, whether in written media or in conversation with one or more medical professionals or some combination of the aforementioned. This is to prevent someone making a permanent decision that they may severely regret in the future.

6) Transgender. How do you plan to handle it?


I figure that's enough to start.